The reasons of unsatisfactory results of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in patients with ureterolithiasis

Keywords: urology, disease, ureterolithiasis, ureterolithotripsy, extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy, low-invasive surgery, endoscopy, diagnostics, treatment, prophylactics

Abstract

The article dedicate to the problem of failure of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy in patients with ureterolithiasis and reveal the changes which appear in the ureter in the location of the stone.The aim. Analysis of the results of treatment in patients, suffering ureteric stones, using the ureterolithotripsy procedure after failure extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy.

Materials and methods. In 137 patients with ureteric stones, whom ureterolithotripsy procedure after failure extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy was conducted, the symptoms of the disease, the diagnostic methods value, efficacy of surgical treatment and reasons of the failure of previous method of treatment were analyzed.

Results. In 135 patients endoscopic removal of stones has been succeeded, in 2 patients because of total obliteration of the ureter, uretero-ureteral anastomosis has been performed. If the symptoms, with are characteristic of ureterolithiasis, persists up to one week stones don’t cause significant macroscopic changes to the ureter wall. If the stone persists in the ureter longer than a week we identified local appearing of oedema. Long–term (more than two months) ureteric stone persistence increase the risk of intramucosal “ingrowth” of the calculi greatly.

Conclusion. The URS and ESWL are high effective and minimal invasive methods of surgical intervention for patients with ureterolithiasis, guaranteeing high level of postoperative “stone free rate”. Prolongation of the stone insertion time in the ureter causes the ureteric wall changes, complicating performance of minimal invasive interventions (ureterolithotripsy and extracorporeal shock–wave lithotripsy) and reduce its efficacy.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

Oleksandr Vozianov, State Institution “Institute of Urology of National Academy of Medical Sciences of Ukraine”

Department of Endourology and Lithotripsy

References

Sorokin, I., Mamoulakis, C., Miyazawa, K., Rodgers, A., Talati, J., Lotan, Y. (2017). Epidemiology of stone disease across the world. World Journal of Urology, 35(9), 1301–1320. doi: http://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-017-2008-6

Worcester, E. M., Coe, F. L. (2010). Calcium Kidney Stones. New England Journal of Medicine, 363 (10), 954–963. doi: http://doi.org/10.1056/nejmcp1001011

Ray, A. A., Ghiculete, D., Pace, K. T., Honey, R. J. D. (2010). Limitations to Ultrasound in the Detection and Measurement of Urinary Tract Calculi. Urology, 76 (2), 295–300. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2009.12.015

Smith-Bindman, R., Aubin, C., Bailitz, J., Bengiamin, R. N., Camargo, C. A., Corbo, J. et. al. (2014). Ultrasonography versus Computed Tomography for Suspected Nephrolithiasis. New England Journal of Medicine, 371 (12), 1100–1110. doi: http://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa1404446

Heidenreich, A. (2002). Modern Approach of Diagnosis and Management of Acute Flank Pain: Review of All Imaging Modalities. European Urology, 41 (4), 351–362. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/s0302-2838(02)00064-7

Smith-Bindman, R., Moghadassi, M., Griffey, R. T., Camargo, C. A., Bailitz, J., Beland, M., Miglioretti, D. L. (2015). Computed Tomography Radiation Dose in Patients With Suspected Urolithiasis. JAMA Internal Medicine, 175 (8), 1413–1416. doi: http://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.2697

Rodger, F., Roditi, G., Aboumarzouk, O. M. (2018). Diagnostic Accuracy of Low and Ultra-Low Dose CT for Identification of Urinary Tract Stones: A Systematic Review. Urologia Internationalis, 100 (4), 375–385. doi: http://doi.org/10.1159/000488062

Xiang, H., Chan, M., Brown, V., Huo, Y. R., Chan, L., Ridley, L. (2017). Systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of low-dose computed tomography of the kidneys, ureters and bladder for urolithiasis. Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Oncology, 61 (5), 582–590. doi: http://doi.org/10.1111/1754-9485.12587

Türk, C., Neisius, A., Petrik, A., Seitz, C., Skolarikos, A., Thomas, K. (2020). EAU Guidelines on Urolithiasis. Netherlands: EAU Guidelines Office. Available at: https://uroweb.org/wp-content/uploads/EAU-Guidelines-on-Urolithiasis-2020.pdf

Turk, C., Knoll, T., Petrik, A., Sarica, K., Skolarios, A., Straub, M. (2015). Guidelines on Urolithiasis. Netherlands: EAU Guidelines Office. Available from: https://uroweb.org/wp-content/uploads/22-Urolithiasis_LR_full.pdf

Iqbal, N., Malik, Y., Nadeem, U., Khalid, M. et. al. (2018). Comparison of ureteroscopic pneumatic lithotripsy and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for the management of proximal ureteral stones: A single center experience. Türk Üroloji Dergisi/Turkish Journal of Urology, 44 (3), 221–227. doi: http://doi.org/10.5152/tud.2018.41848

Cui, Y., Cao, W., Shen, H., Xie, J., Adams, T. S., Zhang, Y., Shao, Q. (2014). Comparison of ESWL and Ureteroscopic Holmium Laser lithotripsy in Management of Ureteral Stones. PLoS ONE, 9 (2), e87634. doi: http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0087634

Dell’atti, L., Papa, S. (2016). Ten-year experience in the management of distal ureteral stones greater than 10 mm in size. Il Giornali Di Chirurgia, 37 (1), 27–30. doi: http://doi.org/10.11138/gchir/2016.37.1.027

Sagalevich, A. I., Vozianov, O. S., Ozhohin, V. V., Dzhuran, B. V., Kogut, V. V., Gaysenyuk, F. Z., Sergiychuk, R. V. (2018). Treatment of ureterolithiasis with the use of percutaneous antegrade ureterolithotripsy. Zaporozhye Medical Journal, 22 (2), 162–166. doi: http://doi.org/10.14739/2310-1210.2018.02.124838

Choi, J. D., Seo, S. I., Kwon, J., Kim, B. S. (2019). Laparoscopic Ureterolithotomy vs Ureteroscopic Lithotripsy for Large Ureteral Stones. JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons, 23 (2), e2019.00008. doi: http://doi.org/10.4293/jsls.2019.00008

Torricelli, F. C. M., Monga, M., Marchini, G. S., Srougi, M., Nahas, W. C., Mazzucchi, E. (2016). Semi-rigid ureteroscopic lithotripsy versus laparoscopic ureterolithotomy for large upper ureteral stones: a meta – analysis of randomized controlled trials. International Braz j Urol, 42 (4), 645–654. doi: http://doi.org/10.1590/s1677-5538.ibju.2015.0696

Şahin, S., Aras, B., Ekşi, M., Şener, N. C., Tugču, V. (2016). Laparoscopic Ureterolithotomy. JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons, 20 (1), e2016.00004. doi: http://doi.org/10.4293/jsls.2016.00004

Lesovoy, V. N., Yakovtova, I. I., Danilyuk, S. V., Stetsishin, R. V. (2018). Morphofunctional state of the ureter wall in the experimental modeling of uretherolithiasis. Urology, 21 (1), 22–27. doi: http://doi.org/10.26641/2307-5279.21.1.2017.150084

Vogt, B., Chokri, I. (2020). Histological Inflammation in Human Ureter either Healthy or Fitted with Double-Pigtail Stent or a Thin 0.3 F Suture Thread: A Preliminary Study. Advances in Urology, 2020, 1–5. doi: http://doi.org/10.1155/2020/1204897

Hamamoto, S., Okada, S., Inoue, T., Sugino, T., Unno, R., Taguchi, K. et. al. (2020). Prospective evaluation and classification of endoscopic findings for ureteral calculi. Scientific Reports, 10 (1). doi: http://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-69158-w


👁 43
⬇ 44
Published
2021-07-30
How to Cite
Vozianov, O. (2021). The reasons of unsatisfactory results of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in patients with ureterolithiasis. EUREKA: Health Sciences, (4), 48-53. https://doi.org/10.21303/2504-5679.2021.001797
Section
Medicine and Dentistry